Flubber disabled [ ] <-- Does that mean that flubber is not disabled ?
Never touch the label, and never tell state outside of the checkbox:
Flubber [X] <-- Clearly, flubber is enabled.
Flubber [ ] <-- Obviously, there's no flubber.
Enable Flubber [X]
But not when labeled
Flubber Enabled [X]?
To me there problem here is understanding if the toggle is displaying a state or action because English is limited. But in the past tense version that is far less confusing because it clearly expresses that this is a state and cannot be an action (i.e. "Would you like to Flubber Enabled?" doesn't work nor does "Would you like to Enabled Flubber?" but "Would you like to Enable Flubber?" does). The "ed" matters as well as the word positions. The reason being is that the second word describes the state of the first which is why you can change it. In your example it is easy to understand with the checkbox but the thread at hand is about how toggle switches' visual appearance is confusing so your example is clearly not obvious (otherwise this thread wouldn't be on the front page). The idea of toggling the label means that there are now two indicators of __state__ that should verify one another and thus reduce confusion.
It is common in telling someone how to use a UX that they need to "disable" X or Y option, but, again, that is to say that the intended state is on or off.
"UnFlubberize:disabled [__O] enabled"
The toggle being off means it looks like "Flubber disabled: off" or "Flubber disabled: no" but it means "Flubber disabled: yes"
The ARIA guidelines for switches even have a big warning about not doing this[1].
"Flubber enabled" [toggle ON]
"Flubber disabled" [toggle OFF]